The guy has called for another referendum on the terms of the UK’s departure from the EU. What can he possibly hope to gain by contradicting the Prime Minister so soon after she has said that ‘Brexit means Brexit’, and that she will invoke Clause 50 before the end of March 2017? Does he actually want to be sacked? Does he want to have his proposals for the Health Dept to be vetoed? Perhaps he does. Perhaps he has calculated that, if his proposals are vetoed, he can step down and shout a lot, and become the leader of the pro-EU Tory MPs, and thus the new leader-elect of the Tory party in due course. I mean, after all, he must be aware that such a referendum makes no sense whatsoever. THE PEOPLE have decided that the UK WILL ‘Break Free’ from the stultifying bureaucracy of the EU. That is a fact. He cannot go back to the voters and say that the terms are too onerous and so it would be better if we stay in. That possibility does not arise. Who would decide that the terms are too onerous? Him? How would the general public know what is too onerous and what is not? It is asking too much of them. No doubt we would have a repeat of ‘Project Fear’.
But I have just found out that Hunt is another person tightly tied in with Common Purpose, along with Clegg and Cameron. ‘Common Purpose’ is another organisation called a ‘charity’. It’s ‘charitable purpose’ is ‘to lead beyond authority’, which means ‘to impose authoritarian dictats upon The People’. CP is clearly a political organisation and should be described as such, if it is to have charitable status. We know that the word ‘charitable’ is the wrong word for many of those organisations. Many of them function in the area of helping people who have problems of all sorts, and they are indeed ‘charities’, even if that function concerns legal matters and such. It is those organisations which are ‘not-for-profit’ but not actually in the business of hleping people which are the problem. Golf Clubs are a good example. Most of them are owned by the members and operate as a ‘service’. They do not share out ‘profits’ or ‘dividends’. Any ‘surpluses’ are retained within the club for the benefit of the the membership as a whole. But even there, there are problems. For example, suppose that ‘visitors’ fees’ are so big that members pay little or no subscriptions? Suppose that members enjoy lavish dinners, subsidised by the club on the back of ‘visitors’ fees’? Are those lavish dinners not much the same as dividends?
Is there an answer?
I suppose that there is. It would involve a massive reorganisation and simplification of our taxation system. What might be the guiding principle? Suppose that it was WEALTH and not INCOME? I am a total amateur in these matters, but I can see a way.
For example, suppose that you owned the top of Mount Everest. What would be the benefit of owning that piece of the surface of the Earth? What would the top of Mount Everest be worth? In WEALTH terms, it would be worthless. Suppose that you owned a cubic mile of the Atlantic ocean, somewhere out in the middle where the Atlantic is very deep? Would you have some wealth from owning that cubic mile? No, you would not. But owning a square mile of London, or owning millions of shares in Big Tobacco is REAL WEALTH. Those shares are the equivalent of several square miles of the centre of London, perhaps.
But why would those shares in Big Tobacco be any different from the top of Mount Everest? It is because they produce GROSS income.
So we can see a vague definition of WEALTH for taxation purposes. It is the PRODUCT of that wealth, in gross terms. WEALTH should pay tax on its GROSS eanings, subject to some personal limit.
My house earns nothing for me, therefore it should not be subject to taxation NOW because it just might have some value when it is sold after I peg out. Maybe the sale in due course would be subject to some taxation. Oddly enough, I have no problem with that, even if it reduced the value of my daughters’ inheritance.
So what about income tax, etc? Well, just like dividends from shares, income from work is WEALTH.
But what to do about the imbalance of the ownership of wealth-creating assets? That is a huge problem, but one for future generations to solve. At the moment, it is not important. Should we pity the property owners in Syria, who see their blocks of flats being reduced to rubble? But what about the bombing of London in WW2? who owned the buildings and who owned the land upon which those building were built? It is incomprehensible that the owners of the land got off from the cost of the destruction so easily. Who cleaned up the mess? It was taxpayers, and not the owners.
Theresa May could do worse than set in train a reform of out taxation system. Chasing chimera such as ‘public health’ will do nothing to improve the wellbeing of the people. The whole ‘tobacco control’ establishment is a fraud, and everyone who is not blind can see it. There is the EU ban on snus. How can that perfectly obviously harmful edict from the EU be supported? Further, how could the EU bureaucracy contemplate damaging the ecig phenomenon when it is perfectly obviously a good way for smokers to wean themselves off cumbustion products? What, from a Public Health point of view, could be more desirable?
The answer is obvious – tobacco control in the EU, and at the direction of the UN, has never been about health. Dick Puddlecote has often said that, but he has never said waht tobacco control is actually about.
It is about ‘The Millennium Goals’.
I have some sympathy with those goals, which amount to not exhausting the materials immediately available to us in the surface of the Earth. But the problem is and has been THE SECRECY. It is the secrecy that Cameron et al are responsible for – the Common Purpose wizards who think that they are in charge. ‘Leading beyond authority’ means imposing ‘unauthorised’ laws and regulations. That is why some ‘Common Purpose’ personnel are shouting in local authorities about smoking bans on beaches. They shout and shout, and get their way because of the shouting.
But we smokers will not be defeated. We will not be defeated because we exist, and will continue to exist. Doot believe the junk science of the Zealots. There are loads and loads of youths who are enjoying tobacco. I have seen it for myself lots of times. These are the people who do not do YouGov surveys. Those youths who do YouGov surveys are weird.
Enough of the ranting for tonight. I am annoyed. I want to go on a little trip to Spain, and I find that, because I want to go during the mid-term school holidays, it might cost me a bomb.
Why are mid-term hols not spread out like summer hols used to be in the North West of England, when the cotton mills existed? If I want to enjoy a trip to Spain during the mid-term break in October, it will cost me the same as a trip in August. Thus, it is families who suffer, and they are the people least able to afford it. And the rip-off is fully supported by the Elite.
Sod them! Sod them all!